Posted on 08/07/2005 10:20:55 PM PDT by goldstategop
I don't know who makes me sicker – President Bush or the "conservatives" who continue to back him and his sell-out choice for the U.S. Supreme Court.
The conservatives eagerly jumped in to throw their support to the unknown John Roberts as soon as the choice to replace Sandra Day O'Connor was announced.
On what basis? The guy was a blank slate – like David Souter and Anthony Kennedy before him.
Then, last week, the Los Angeles Times broke the story that Roberts had volunteered his services – pro bono – to help prepare a landmark homosexual activist case to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.
He did his job well. But he didn't serve the public interest. And he certainly no longer sounds like the carefully crafted image of a jurist who believes in the Constitution and judicial restraint.
The 1996 Romer vs. Evans case produced what the homosexual activists considered, at the time, its most significant legal victory, paving the way for an even bigger one – Lawrence vs. Texas, the Supreme Court ruling that effectively overturned all laws prohibiting sodomy in the United States.
There was some immediate concern expressed by conservatives following the story. But after being assured by the White House that everything was all right, they quickly fell into line, quietly paving the way for what I predict will be a unanimous or near-unanimous confirmation vote in the U.S. Senate.
Some conservatives even suggested the story in the L.A. Times was designed to divide conservatives. If that isn't a case of blaming the messenger! No, the point of the L.A. Times story was to bring the Democrats on board – to reassure them that Roberts is definitely in the mold of Souter and Kennedy.
As disappointing as Bush has been as president, I really didn't expect him to nominate a constitutionalist to replace O'Connor.
But the vast majority of establishment conservative leaders have no idea how they are being manipulated.
It's really sad.
They simply buy into the White House talking points, which say Roberts was merely being a good soldier for his law firm.
Roberts was a partner in the firm. His job was not in jeopardy if he excused himself from the case on principled moral grounds. That would have been the honorable thing to do – either that, or resign from a law partnership that took such reprehensible clients.
Now that would be the kind of jurist I could support to serve on the Supreme Court for a lifetime appointment.
Walter A. Smith, the attorney in charge of pro bono work at Hogan & Hartson from 1993 to 1997, who worked with Roberts on the Romer case, said Roberts expressed no hesitation at taking the case. He jumped at the opportunity.
"Every good lawyer knows that if there is something in his client's cause that so personally offends you, morally, religiously, if it offends you that you think it would undermine your ability to do your duty as a lawyer, then you shouldn't take it on, and John wouldn't have," he said. "So at a minimum, he had no concerns that would rise to that level."
Keep in mind the intent and result of this case. It overturned a provision of the Colorado Constitution that blocked special rights for people based on their sexual proclivities.
Roberts did not have a moral problem with that. He did not have a moral problem with helping those activists win a major battle in the culture war. He did not have a moral problem with using the Supreme Court to interfere in the sovereign decisions of a sovereign people in a sovereign state. He did not have a moral problem coaching homosexual activists on how to play politics with the court.
This was not just an "intellectual exercise," as some have suggested. Roberts' actions had real impact on the future of our nation.
He ought to be ashamed of himself as a self-proclaimed Catholic. In some dioceses, he would be denied communion for his betrayal of his faith.
He ought to be denied a confirmation vote by the U.S. Senate. But I predict he will get every Republican vote and nearly all of the Democrat votes.
Sad. Tragic. Pathetic.
But didn't the lawyer lady in Romer say that Roberts' help was "absolutely essential" to their having won the case? Makes it sounds like it was a BIT more than just volunteering to do an impression of Scalia, who would have accepted Romer when hell froze over.
It looks a lot like Roberts = Rehnquist with a soft spot for gays.
Are you saying that Roberts' "moral grounds" should have been that he was in favor of discriminating against gays?
Roman Catholicism, which he professes to be a devout believer of, would not countenance giving material support to the homo side of the culture war.
Oh joy, this discussion has plunged down to the moral level of an alley cat. No I take that back, it's an insult to alley cats everywhere.
Is that a fancy way of saying that Catholics are in favor of discriminating against gays in the work place and housing?
The Times is NOT trying to "reassure the Left." They are trying to get the knickers of the Right in a twist. And Farrah, being either a fool or overly excited, buys into the bit.
And yes, I can easily supply three written decisions by Roberts that are examples of "strict construction." The French fry in the metro case -- he said the police action was foolish, but within the Constitution. The arroyo toad case -- he wrote that the toad did not cross state lines, and therefore was unconstitutional. The no-license, no-registration auto case -- he wrote that it was good police work to search the car trunk.
Those who doubt that Roberts follows a strict view of the Constitution should read MORE of his words, and less of the second-, third-, and fourth-hand words about him, like this ill-informed piece by Farrah.
Congressman Billybob
I don't believe ANYBODY should be purposefully discriminated against with regard to housing or employment because of their sexual orientation.
I won't hammer you on it, but it sure doesn't sound like a response that I would expect to hear from you.
If Mr. Roberts gets on the Supreme Court, I don't know whether he will be a good justice or a bad one. But I do know that the FReeper "conservatives" have a love fixation on president Bush. One dare not say anything negative about him or they go into a frenzy like a lover defending his love object.
IMO your cute logic covers up
Get real.
Why is that?
Are you under the impression that conservatives are in favor of sanctioned discrimination against a certain class of people?
If attorney Smith is right about the pro bono process at the firm, then we have to ask whether Roberts played a minor or a major role in the case. To me it looks minor.
And in any case, Farah lost me when his website ran a disgracefully unpatriotic column shortly after 9-11. He is a flake with unreliable judgment, to say the least.
The endorsements of Mark Levin and Robert Bork mean a lot to me. For now, I'd say support Roberts strongly. The Rats are showing every sign of fighting him, and that means a lot, too.
I am, very neatly, a Protestant, so you will have to go to the Vatican about that. But this was only a ban on "special rights" laws. Such laws, on general principle, stink, and stink even worse when the average member of the supposedly suffering class is actually sitting significantly higher on the catbird seat than John Q. Citizen.
the proposition that opposition to homosexuality is as reprehensible as racial or religious bias ... is precisely the cultural debate that gave rise to the Colorado constitutional amendment (and to the preferential laws against which the amendment was directed). Since the Constitution of the United States says nothing about this subject, it is left to be resolved by normal democratic means, including the democratic adoption of provisions in state constitutions. This Court has no business imposing upon all Americans the resolution favored by the elite class from which the Members of this institution are selected, pronouncing that "animosity" toward homosexuality, ante, at 13, is evil. I vigorously dissent.He clearly disagrees that the Constitution plainly speaks to this issue, so would leave it to the normal democratic process and individual states.
I certainly have to respect his opinion. Whenever I find myself disagreeing with Scalia on a matter of constitutional law, my presumption is that I am wrong.
Clearly, in any case, this is not a wedge issue that should divide support for Roberts in half. There is nothing here from which one can conclude that Roberts fidelity to the constitution is in grave doubt.
And, then, of course, there are those of you all who hate every single thing he does or says.
Not much difference in the two groups, IMO.
Except, of course, that "we" were able to get somebody elected, which seems to have really frosted some of you all's butts.
Members of the press can be expected to write "news" articles and opinion pieces that have no relationship to the facts. But serious posters on FreeRepublic are held to a higher standard. We are supposed to do some basic reading, so we can participate productively in the on-line conversations.
It is time for you to do your homework.
John / Billybob
---That would have been the honorable thing to do – either that, or resign from a law partnership that took such reprehensible clients.---
You think that someone that resigned from a law firm that represented gays in a legal matter would be a better appointment to the Supreme Court?
Mr. Roberts is very, very, smart. He is magna cum laude from Harvard, literally #1 in the class, smart. And if that has gone to his ego, that could be a achilles' heel, as he leans towards decisions that are more marked by cleverness than conservatism. When in the SCOTUS, precedent means squat. They *are* the precedent.
the FReeper "conservatives" have a love fixation on president Bush.
On the contrary. Many FReepers are in lockstep with GW, but many of us disagree with him on some issues. Mine is immigration. he gets a fair amount of bashing on this site.
So, in other words, if something is said that is disagreed with, people shouldn't express said disagreement if it is a post bashing Bush. We must accept it and move on, right?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.